Manon Perreault

[Montcalm Fundraising Campaign, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the traditional charity fundraising campaign held in Quebec in December. Every year, thousands of volunteers across Quebec turn out to collect non-perishable food items and cash donations in order to help families going through hard times.

In Montcalm, the fundraising campaign is always an opportunity to work together, share, help out and, above all, cultivate friendships. Yesterday, my husband and I went to help a group working out of the Émilie-Gamelin parish in Saint-Lin-Laurentides. We met compassionate people who, in their own way, encourage every volunteer to do their best. I have a great deal of respect for their dedicated efforts. They work tirelessly to help young families, seniors and people with disabilities.

I must also mention the organization Parenfants de Mascouche, whose mission is to help and to nurture the development of young vulnerable families.

I sincerely ask my colleagues to be generous so that, together, we can make real change happen.

[Persons with Disabilities, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, just now, when I asked my colleague what is the greatest challenge, I would have liked to hear him talk about transportation. It is true that prejudice is still widespread. However, transportation for people with disabilities is a major issue just about everywhere in Canada. That is the reality and we cannot ignore it.

I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 430 today concerning job opportunities for people with disabilities. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the commitment of my colleague who, with this motion, has drawn the attention of the House to this crucial issue. I appreciate the work he has done and his commitment to helping people living with functional limitations.

I can say from the outset that we will support this motion.

That said, I have some doubts and some questions about the motion. I cannot help but be somewhat skeptical, given the government's record on this issue in the two years that I have been in office.

After all, since the Conservatives have been in power, they have not really done anything to address the issue of unemployment and disproportionate underemployment for Canadians living with functional limitations.

I will admit that this motion is a step in the right direction. However, I do not think it is enough after all these years in office.

Let us begin by taking a look at the wording of the motion. The motion asks the government to “endorse the report of the Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities entitled 'Rethinking disAbility in the Private Sector'”, and to support other measures to promote employment opportunities for Canadians with disabilities based on the panel's findings.

Let us first talk about the panel's main findings, which are often referred to in the motion. Among other things, we are told that nearly 800,000 persons with disabilities are able to work and that about half of them have a post-secondary education. The report also indicates that when businesses hire persons with disabilities, special arrangements are not needed half of the time. When special arrangements are required, the average cost to the business is only $500.

The report also says that there is a strong will to hire persons with disabilities, but that more education and training are necessary for businesses to understand how to overcome obstacles and implement their ideas. The example must come from the top and actions by business leaders are absolutely necessary. Mental disabilities are particularly problematic because employees are reluctant to disclose such difficulties to obtain special arrangements from employers.

The report also found that hiring persons with disabilities makes good business sense and that myths and preconceived ideas still exist in the business community regarding the costs and risks related to the hiring of persons with disabilities.

Come on. Was the government really so ill-informed? The answer is surely no. These are likely open secrets.

Although many studies have been conducted on this issue, most of the recommendations have never been implemented. The existing barriers to employment for persons with disabilities are fairly well known and have been for a number of years. Everyone agrees that the panel's report contains good suggestions for employers and encourages them to hire people with disabilities. However, is that enough after all these years?

For the reasons I just mentioned, I think this report simply ignores the important role that the federal government plays in the fight against inequality in the workforce. This report is sorely lacking because it does not examine job stability, flexible scheduling, the notion of high-quality jobs, health and disability benefits, transportation, housing and income security.

These are all issues that we talked about with witnesses during the study in committee. However, there is no trace of these considerations in a report based on all these consultations.

I wonder why the panel's report is addressed only to Canadian business leaders. Why was the panel not mandated to make recommendations to the government?

If we make the effort to study an issue, it is because we want to come up with recommendations. We could easily ask ourselves why the Conservatives are relying on the private sector and the provinces and territories to fix the problem.

Are they trying in a roundabout way to undermine the federal government's role as the catalyst for change in this file?

For years, organizations that represent Canadians with disabilities have been calling on the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to improve the representation of people with disabilities in the workforce. This motion and the report's findings to which it refers do not constitute such a strategy. The motion also refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the UNCRPD. Need I remind members of the Conservatives' poor record in that regard and that we are still waiting for the follow-up report to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is over a year late?

Not to mention the fact that the government has also not appointed an internal oversight body to monitor implementation, which could simply have been the Canadian Human Rights Commission. What is more, the government did not sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on February 28, Laurie Beachell, from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, even said that the government had not yet issued its first report to the United Nations. He added that, having signed the convention, Canada is obligated to provide that report. He added that the council was still waiting for the report and that he was disappointed about not having two things: first, the council does not have a strategy for how it is going to move forward and use this document; second, while new policy initiatives are going forward, the council believes that, in some cases, they are not being measured against the convention.

With respect to the existing policies and programs the motion refers to, they contain many gaps and inadequacies, lack coordination with provincial programs and services, and do not include proper performance measures or measurable objectives. A comprehensive assessment of those policies and programs must be done before we go any further on this. The motion and the panel report both fail to take into account people who have complex needs or multiple disabilities or who must overcome multiple forms of discrimination. I am referring, for instance, to women or first nations people with disabilities.

In short, no initiatives or support measures have been proposed for these people. No solutions have been suggested to correct problems with income security programs, which are full of employment disincentives. Am I to presume that the private sector will take care of this problem on behalf of the federal government?

The motion also fails to take into account issues of education, employment and social assistance that specifically affect working age women with disabilities, who are more likely than men to live in a low-income household. Nor are there any measures for first nations populations, who already face considerable obstacles, including severe limitations on their access to transportation, education, communications and health services. The rate of disability among this group is roughly double the Canadian average. The government therefore needs to clearly state that it intends to work in partnership with the provinces and territories, first nations and people with disabilities in order to come up with an implementation plan for Canada, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Consequently, I believe that this motion is a step in the right direction. Of course, I will be supporting it, and I am pleased by my colleague's efforts.

However, we want to see more done to change the situation. Although the motion has merit, it is just a first step, and we must go further.

The representation of disabled people in the workforce has stagnated over the past 30 years. It is time to change that and truly give them access to the labour market and a decent standard of living. This motion is the first step to getting there.

I would like to remind my colleague and the other members in the House that after spending at least 23 years in a wheelchair, I might know what I am talking about. When I say that transportation is truly a critical issue for the employability of persons with disabilities, I am speaking from experience.

Naturally, I am familiar with the problems we face when we enter the job market. One of the biggest problems is transportation. Para-transit is often run by a service that covers only a small area. In my opinion, that is one of the biggest problems.

Getting housing near where we work is another major problem, which is also related to transportation.

That being said, I appreciate a number of aspects of my colleague's motion. I know that he is well-meaning, but there are important aspects that must not be overlooked. I would like us to study this matter further.

[Persons with Disabilities, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that there are good intentions behind this motion. However, I doubt that the member can name the key issues for employability of people with disabilities.

I will explain. During debate on the motion, I would have liked us to have an in-depth discussion on flexible scheduling, job stability and, perhaps, the notion of high-quality jobs. Jobs offered to people with disabilities are often not that interesting.

Besides the measures he mentioned earlier, what would my colleague say is the most important issue that should be tackled first? What makes it difficult for a person with disabilities to go to work?

[Health, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are refusing to acknowledge their responsibility. The federal government is the fifth-largest provider of medical coverage in the country, but wait times are atrocious for over 1.3 million people, including members of first nations and the armed forces and veterans.

When the parliamentary secretary says this is not in his jurisdiction, he is misleading the House and denying his department's responsibility. Where is the parliamentary secretary's plan to reduce wait times?

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from the NDP will be able to explain something to me.

The Conservatives chose to go through the Senate in order to tackle a really serious problem. We know that tobacco smuggling is a scourge on both the economy and people's health.

Given everything that is going on with Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, we know that nothing is working within that institution. It is going through one of its worst crises at the moment.

So can someone explain to me why the Conservatives decided to have this bill go through the Senate?

[Pope John Paul II Day Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-266, which would establish Pope John Paul II Day.

I am well aware that this is a sensitive topic and opinion is divided when it comes to recognizing the good actions of a religious man of such importance in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, it must be acknowledged that through his social actions, Pope John Paul II touched the hearts of many people of all religious beliefs. We must not forget that he was behind the first international interfaith meeting in Assisi in 1986. On that occasion, he brought together over 190 religious leaders.

John Paul II has been recognized as an ambassador for world peace. He did not hesitate to meet with numerous leaders of various countries, often political opposites, with the aim of promoting dialogue among nations. I cannot fail to mention the fact that John Paul II was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize because of the important work he did to end Communist oppression in eastern Europe.

I would like the House to consider for a moment the riding I represent, Montcalm. A number of Catholic community organizations are putting all their efforts into building an increasingly caring and vital community. I am thinking of Clarence Thériault, grand knight of the Knights of Columbus in Sainte-Julienne, who talks openly about his Catholic religion and is proud of his work with the Fabrique de Sainte-Julienne.

The religious communities that have been here for generations have a very proud history in this country. I need only think of the sisters of Horeb Saint-Jacques, like Sr. Carmelle and Sr. Jeannine, and the fine work done by Diane Lafontaine, a woman committed to justice and service, and all of the others who devote their time and energy to working for no material gain.

I would also like to mention a friend of the family, Paul Léveillé, the priest in charge of the parishes of Sainte-Marie-Salomé, Saint-Jacques, Saint-Liguori, Saint-Alexis and L'Épiphanie. Paul has been a friend for many years. In fact, he will celebrate the 40th anniversary of his life as a priest this year. If you are watching, Paul, congratulations. I have to say that Paul is a mainstay, not just for practising individuals, but also for young people.

My husband and I occasionally attend Sunday services and have the opportunity to meet older people who live in the riding of Montcalm. Even today, those people still have an enormous amount of affection for the man they describe as a uniting force, a very generous man who was close to the people. When I hear about Pope John Paul II, I inevitably think of the good people whom I have met in my community and in my life and who know this historic figure and have great respect for his good and altruistic works.

When we talk to people of the previous generation, they tell us that Pope John Paul II was their Pope, the one who was extremely involved in public life and who left an indelible mark on every major event in the late 20th century.

The role he played in putting an end to the racist government of South Africa and in bringing down the iron curtain in eastern Europe is well known. In addition, Pope John Paul II, who was born in Poland, was an important figure in the fall of Communism in his home country. He is loved and highly respected by the Polish and Catholic communities.

The role he played in ending the military regimes in Latin America and his opposition to the war in Iraq gave him political importance. His interest in extending a hand to groups that the church had harmed in the past also gave him a significant amount of social importance.

Just before he died, there was great pain throughout the Catholic community and an equal reaction among non-Catholics. He was, at the time, an almost permanent fixture in world affairs and in Catholics' minds.

He was a good man, it must be said, but a complex one. He was an important player on the world stage. He was important to the people of Montcalm and to those of Mississauga East—Cooksville.

Pope John Paul II is an important figure in the history of the 20th century.

His presence, like that of many historical figures, could draw praise as well as criticism. I would prefer my remarks to be positive and therefore I choose to focus on the praise. Although probably better known for his role in connection with the Solidarity union in Poland and for the fall of the iron curtain in eastern Europe, he was also an important player in the fall of the military dictatorships in Chile and Paraguay and the racist government of South Africa.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand why it is important to strive for a better future and fight for the change that has to happen before that future can be achieved. Pope John Paul II truly understood that an inclusive democracy was the key to a better future. What is more, unlike the current government, he immediately opposed the war in Iraq. He said: “War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”

This is the same person who refused to fire his rifle during his mandatory military service in Poland. Furthermore, unlike our current government, he believed in basic science, evolution and climate change.

In the message he gave on World Peace Day, he said:

The ecological crisis reveals the urgent moral need for a new solidarity, especially in relations between the developing nations and those that are highly industrialized.

He also added, “I wish to repeat that the ecological crisis is a moral issue.”

Pope John Paul II also had a special relationship with Canada. He visited our country on several occasions, including in 2002, when over 500,000 young people gathered in a Toronto park for World Youth Day, which is commonly known as WYD. Pope John Paul II created WYD to encourage young people to participate in community development.

It is sometimes difficult to understand the actions of a person who, in all honestly, had very little power. He did not have a tank or a plane; yet he refused to use the only weapon he was given because he firmly believed that respect for human life is paramount. His actions had a profound impact on people from all walks of life, from all countries and from all religions. His time as Pope, which was marked by open-mindedness and co-operation with other religions, was anchored in tradition and a strong cultural attachment.

However, we can say that in many ways his struggle mirrored that of our party, the NDP. My colleagues will understand why I say this. During a visit to Haiti in 1983, he spoke to Haitian Christians about the importance of democratic accountability and freedom, in addition to addressing Duvalier's corrupt government. He talked to the crowd about a series of policy issues that could have been taken from an NDP policy book. These issues included having the opportunity to get enough food, receive proper care, find safe housing, go to school and find an interesting and well-paid job. In short, he talked about everything that provides a better quality of life for men and women, youth, the elderly and workers.

I would like to ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to vote in line with us when we put these policies on the table. I would also ask them to stop being so closed-minded.

Pope John Paul II was a symbol of freedom and change. He was recognized for his humility when he publicly apologized for the role the church played in more than 100 historical wrongs.

I truly believe that John Paul II deserves a day that not only celebrates his work as a religious and spiritual man, but also celebrates this great man who had but one mission and one vision: to ensure that universal peace reigns in the hearts of all nations.

To conclude, I will just reiterate that Pope John Paul II is an important figure in Roman Catholic history. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2004 and spoke out against oppressive measures in eastern Europe and many other countries. Pope John Paul II was committed to peace and dialogue between different religions.

For all these reasons, I will support this bill.

[Quebec Week of Disabled Persons, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, every year, the first week of June marks the Quebec week of disabled persons, which is intended to promote and encourage the social participation of people with disabilities. This week provides an opportunity to raise awareness about the educational, social and professional realities that people with disabilities face.

Whether it involves access to paratransit, affordable and accessible housing and inclusive job markets or putting an end to financial insecurity, action is urgently needed to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy the same rights as all other Canadians.

Accordingly, I want to acknowledge all the work that the City of Mascouche has done in 2013 to develop an action plan for people with disabilities. The goal of this policy is to ensure that every individual can be independent and safely participate in the community's activities. I would like to congratulate Chantal Filion, who works for the City of Mascouche's municipal services, as well as all of the organizations involved in this action plan, including La Rose Bleue.

[Language Skills Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent on her bill concerning bilingualism as a hiring requirement for officers of Parliament. This gap is totally unacceptable and has lasted for far too long. Needless to say, the subject of this bill, namely Canada's linguistic duality, is a key issue.

Respect for Canada's two official languages is a priority for the NDP. This bill is very timely, since this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission.

A Statistics Canada study released on Tuesday tracking bilingualism from 1961 to 2011 shows that young people are less and less exposed to French, and few immigrants are bilingual.

The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has also expressed concern about the statistics shown by this study. This trend is not a good omen. The study tracked the evolution of bilingualism in Canada since the Laurendeau-Dunton commission was created. That is what laid the foundations for Canada's policy on bilingualism.

When it comes to public life and bilingualism in Canada, certain concrete measures have far-reaching effects. This is why my colleague introduced this bill.

This is about defending bilingualism in Canada, so we need to take meaningful action to do that. Obviously, we all know that this bill stems from the controversy generated by the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General in November 2011, when the job posting for the vacancy clearly said that proficiency in both official languages was an essential qualification for the position.

In spite of the government’s change of direction on this bill, the fact remains that its track record in this regard is not a glowing one, and its negligence is detrimental to Canada's linguistic duality. The most blatant example of this was the appointment of Michael Ferguson as Auditor General.

That is why the NDP decided to take action by introducing a bill to recognize that officers of Parliament must be fluent in both official languages at the time they take up their positions. I am therefore glad that the government has ultimately listened to reason on this issue, at least with respect to officers of Parliament. That is a start. The Conservative government has a chance to stop taking us backward on official languages. This is a simple matter of respecting the language rights of Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent them.

Proficiency in both official languages at the time of appointment must be recognized as an essential qualification for the 10 key positions identified in the bill. The policy on official bilingualism must apply to officers of Parliament. If it does not, Canada's linguistic duality will be seriously undermined.

Let us now look at this bill, and how important it is, in greater detail.

By the nature of their duties, officers of Parliament have to be able to communicate with parliamentarians and Canadians in the official language of their choice. We know very well that this was not the case for the appointment of the Auditor General.

Accordingly, if the bill is enacted, future occupants of the 10 positions in question will have to understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter and will have to be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages when they take up their position. It therefore recognizes that proficiency in both official languages is essential to the performance of their duties.

The following positions will be affected by these measures: Auditor General of Canada, Chief Electoral Officer, Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner.

Under this bill, the appointment of a unilingual person to the position of Auditor General or to any other of the 10 key positions would simply have been impossible.

This bill has brilliantly managed to clarify the linguistic obligations of officers of Parliament so that this kind of situation will never occur again. Only 10 positions are affected by the bill, which thus acknowledges that proficiency in both official languages is essential in performing the duties of officers of Parliament. Consequently, officers must have that proficiency at the time they take up their duties, for a number of reasons.

The Constitution provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada. English and French enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in the institutions of Parliament. Parliamentarians have a right to use English or French in the debates and proceedings of Parliament.

Since officers of Parliament maintain close ties with Parliament and must interact with parliamentarians, it is essential that the incumbents of those positions be proficient in both official languages at the time they are hired. This is also quite obviously a simple matter of respect for our official languages, which, under the Constitution, have the same status in Canada, and for both linguistic groups.

Everything thus stems from the NDP's actions in this matter because the NDP filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada following the appointment of a unilingual individual to the position of Auditor General.

In June 2012, the commissioner concluded in his final investigation report that the position of Auditor General should have been filled by a candidate with proficiency in Canada's two official languages. In the commissioner's view, the Office of the Auditor General is required under the Official Languages Act to offer services in both official languages, and the same is true of the Auditor General himself as the public face of a federal institution that reports to Parliament.

He also concluded that the Privy Council Office, which manages Governor in Council appointments, had failed to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act.

According to the commissioner, historically, the appointment process for officers of Parliament was administered by the Senior Appointments Secretariat at the Privy Council Office. The process does not contain precise language for fluency provisions for incumbents of these positions. It is when the position becomes vacant and a recruitment strategy is put in place with specific selection criteria that linguistic requirements are determined.

Thus Bill C-419 also offers a solution to the absence of specific provisions regarding the language skills of officers of Parliament.

This bill is particularly important for the francophones of all countries, including Quebeckers. Quebec's National Assembly unanimously condemned this appointment and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne strongly denounced it.

The response of the Commissioner of Official Languages and francophones across the country is clear, as is the NDP's approach. We will no longer tolerate unilingual appointments to such important positions.

In conclusion, and because we are dealing with important positions, I would also like to tell the Conservative government again how important it is that judges on the Supreme Court be bilingual, and this should be the second logical step to be taken by the government.

The debate is not over. We still have not swallowed the appointment of the unilingual Justice Moldaver to the Supreme Court. With the government's continued refusal to include bilingualism as a selection criterion for the appointment of judges, English is becoming the main language of an institution that is central to Canadian public life. Therefore, there is still much work to be done in terms of bilingualism in Canada, and it is high time that this changed. The time for defending the principle of unilingual central institutions, such as the Supreme Court, has come and gone.

I said earlier and I repeat that my colleague’s bill will remedy this deplorable situation regarding officers of Parliament. Proficiency in both official languages is essential for some positions.

As we know, the NDP is firmly committed to protecting the language rights of Canadians, and we hope that all parliamentarians will support Bill C-419 so that it becomes law.

I am sure members will agree with me when I say that this bill is very important for francophones in all countries, and especially the constituents of Montcalm, who for the most part are French-speaking. Many of them have Acadian roots. Therefore, for the four municipalities of New Acadia and for the NDP members from Quebec, respect for both official languages is a priority, but for the people in my riding of Montcalm, being served in French is not a choice, it is simply a very legitimate right.

[Last Post Fund, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 422, regarding improvements to the Last Post Fund.

This motion addresses a matter that is of critical importance to veterans and their families. Every veteran deserves a dignified funeral and burial. If we want to properly recognize the significant contribution they have made to our country, then we need to ensure that happens. We will be supporting Motion No. 422, which raises an issue that is very important to veterans and their families.

The Last Post Fund was mandated by Veterans Affairs Canada to provide financial assistance to veterans and their families for funerals, burial, cremation and grave markings.

I would like to provide some more background information. The Last Post Fund is a non-profit organization that, since 1909, has been providing financial assistance for funeral and burial expenses to veterans in financial difficulty at the time of their death. It has been administering the Veterans Affairs Canada funeral and burial program since 1998.

The Last Post Fund is also a charitable organization that collects private donations in order to provide financially disadvantaged veterans with dignified funerals.

Clearly, this program is crucial to our veterans. However, a number of problems have been undermining the program's mandate for several years. Some such problems include program eligibility, which is a serious issue, and the chronic underfunding of the Last Post Fund. The funeral and burial program for veterans has been cut back repeatedly over the past few years. In 1995, the Liberals decreased the estate exemption from $24,000 to $12,015.

For years now, the NDP has been denouncing the fact that the Last Post Fund is clearly underfunded and that many families in need do not qualify for this assistance because the eligibility criteria are too rigid. We are not the only ones calling on this government to increase funding for these programs and broaden the eligibility criteria. Many other stakeholders have also done so, including the Royal Canadian Legion, the Veterans Ombudsman, the Funeral Service Association of Canada, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, Canadian Veterans Advocacy, and the National Council of Veteran Associations.

In his 2009 report, the Veterans Ombudsman called for improvements to the funeral and burial program. The Funeral Service Association of Canada echoed those calls. In 2012, that association even took the time to write to every government member, asking them to ensure that all Canadian veterans could be given a dignified funeral. Members of the association were afraid that the amounts reimbursed through the program did not reflect the real cost of planning a funeral.

Despite the many appeals to the government, it has done nothing to resolve this crucial problem once and for all for veterans and their families. Last fall, the Canadian media reported that some 20,147 applications had been rejected, which equals about two-thirds of all applications received since 2006. Only about 10,000 families have benefited from the program since 2006.

So why is it that so many veterans' families are being denied access to compensation for their funeral and burial?

Our veterans deserve a dignified burial. It is not enough simply to thank them for their service and the contribution they have made to our country, which this government does so well. The best way to thank them is by ensuring that all veterans and their families have access to the program so that veterans can receive the funeral and burial they deserve.

Low-income World War II and Korean War veterans are eligible if the financial needs of their estate can be established. The exemption applicable to the estate of a veteran with a spouse or dependent children, or both, amounts to $12,015. The couple's combined assets are considered, except for the family home, one vehicle and any income received during the month of death.

All liabilities, including funeral and burial costs, are then deducted. For the estate to be eligible, the value of the combined net assets must not exceed $12,015. This amount is well below the poverty line. Veterans living alone are deemed eligible for assistance if the net value of the estate is not sufficient to pay all outstanding debts, including funeral and burial costs.

As for modern-day veterans, they are eligible for assistance only if they died as a result of a service-related disability or if they received a disability benefit. This sadly means that many of today's veterans who are in financial need are not eligible for the dignified funeral and burial offered by the Last Post Fund. This is totally unacceptable.

This is why we want the government to expand the program's eligibility criteria to today's veterans and raise the estate exemption so that more families of veterans are eligible for assistance. Prior to tabling its 2013 budget, the government made no changes to the program, which provided only $3,600 to cover funeral and burial costs.

Given current funeral and burial costs, it goes without saying that the $3,600 reimbursement was completely insufficient, especially since it has not changed since 2001 and we know perfectly well that, these days, a burial in Canada costs between $7,000 and $10,000.

We know that budget 2013 proposes simplifying the program and doubling the reimbursement rate from $3,600 to $7,376, an expenditure of $65 million over two years. However, although the government has increased the reimbursement level, it has not changed the estate exemption criteria or improved access for modern-day veterans.

Veterans' advocacy groups have been arguing for changes for over 20 years now. As a result, no changes will be made to the eligibility criteria so that more veterans' families will be eligible for assistance with respect to estate exemption, for example.

What is more, the government will not modify the eligibility criteria for the modern Canadian Forces, which are more restrictive than for veterans of World War II or the Korean War. We feel that it is not enough. The government's approach does not go far enough. We are not the only ones who feel that way.

The Canadian Veterans Advocacy is pleased that this year's budget addresses the financial issue but remains greatly concerned about the restrictive criteria for the Last Post Fund, particularly the exclusion of deceased veterans who did not serve in World War II or the Korean War but whose families need financial assistance for a dignified burial.

The group is also greatly concerned about the income verification criteria and the current formula under which two-thirds of applications are rejected. The group maintains that it will continue to address the problem until it has been resolved through dialogue and engagement because it wants equality for all veterans.

Even though the government says it is our veterans' advocate, the reality is quite the opposite. Just look at its record and the $246 million in cuts to the Veterans Affairs Canada budget. It will eliminate 2,100 jobs and close nine district offices across Canada in 2014. I would like to remind the government that all veterans and their families deserve a dignified funeral and burial. It is time to put an end to this injustice once and for all. The NDP and I will continue to put pressure on the government to improve Veterans Affairs' funeral and burial program.

[Persons with Disabilities, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to follow up on the hon. member's comments. Earlier, he said that he has been doing volunteer work with persons with disabilities for 25 years. I just want him to know that I have been in a wheelchair for almost that long. I am familiar with the issues and I know what I am talking about.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 430 on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities. I am taking this opportunity to salute the member's commitment and to draw the attention of the House to this critical issue. I really appreciate the hon. member's work.

I can say from the outset that we will support this motion.

That said, I have some doubts and some questions about the motion. I cannot help but be somewhat skeptical, given the government's record on this issue.

After all, the Conservatives have been dragging their feet since they took office. They have not tackled head on the issue of disproportionate unemployment and underemployment for Canadians living with functional limitations.

This motion is a step in the right direction, and I approve it. However, I do not think it is enough after all these years of being in government.

Let us begin by taking a look at the wording of the motion. The motion asks the government to endorse the report of the Panel on Labour Market Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities entitled “Rethinking disAbility in the Private Sector”, and its findings, and to support other measures based on the panel's findings to promote employment opportunities for Canadians with disabilities.

Let us first talk about the panel's main findings, to which the motion often refers. We are told that close to 800,000 persons with disabilities are able to work and that about half of them have post-secondary education; that when businesses hire persons with disabilities, special arrangements are not made in 57% of the cases. When special arrangements are required, the average cost to the business is only $500. The report also says that there is a strong will to hire persons with disabilities, but that more education and training are necessary for businesses to understand how to overcome obstacles and implement their ideas; that the example must come from the top and that actions by business leaders are absolutely necessary; that mental disabilities are particularly problematic because employees are reluctant to disclose such handicaps to obtain special arrangements from employers.

Other findings in the report include the following: hiring persons with disabilities makes good business sense; myths and preconceived ideas still exist in the business community regarding the costs and risks related to the hiring of persons with disabilities.

Come on. Was the government really so ill-informed? The answer is no. These are open secrets.

Even though many studies on this issue have been conducted by committees of the House, most of the recommendations have never been implemented. The barriers to employment of people with disabilities were identified a number of years ago.

Everyone agrees that the report of the special group contains good suggestions for employers and encourages them to hire people with disabilities. However, is that enough after all these years?

For the reasons I just mentioned, this report simply ignores the important role that the federal government plays in the fight against inequality in the workforce.

This report is sorely lacking because it does not examine job stability, flexible scheduling, the notion of high-quality jobs, health and disability benefits, transportation, housing, income security and so much more.

These are all issues that we talked about with witnesses during the study in committee that took place over the course of a few weeks. However, there is no trace of these considerations in a report based on all these consultations.

I wonder why the report of the working group is addressed only to Canadian business leaders. Why was the working group not mandated to make recommendations to the government? If we make the effort to study an issue, it is because we want to come up with recommendations.

It is not hard to guess why: the Conservatives are relying on the private sector and the provinces and territories, which undermines the federal government's role as the catalyst for change in this file.

For years, organizations that represent Canadians with disabilities have been asking the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to improve the representation of people with disabilities in the workforce. This motion and the report's conclusions to which it refers do not constitute such a strategy.

The motion also refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Need I remind members of the Conservatives' poor record in that regard? We are still waiting for this much touted report.

We are also still waiting for the first follow-up report to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is over a year late. The government has also not appointed an internal oversight body to monitor implementation, which could simply have been the Canadian Human Rights Commission. What is more, the government did not sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on February 28, Laurie Beachell, from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, even said that the government did not yet issue its first report to the United Nations. He added that, having signed the convention, Canada is obligated to provide that report. He said that the council was still waiting for the report and that he was disappointed about not having two things. The council does not have a strategy for how it is going to move forward and use this document. While new policy initiatives are going forward, the council believes that, in some cases, they are not being measured against the convention.

With respect to the existing policies and programs the motion refers to, they contain many gaps and inadequacies, lack coordination with provincial programs and services, and do not include proper performance measures or measurable objectives. A comprehensive assessment of those policies and programs must be done before we go any further on this.

The motion and the panel report both fail to take into account people who have complex needs or multiple disabilities or who must overcome multiple forms of discrimination. I am referring, for instance, to women or first nations people with disabilities. In short, no initiatives or support measures have been proposed for these people. No solutions have been suggested to correct problems with income security programs, which are full of employment disincentives. Am I to presume that the private sector will take care of this problem on behalf of the federal government?

The motion also fails to take into account issues of education, employment and social assistance that specifically affect working age women with disabilities, who are more likely than men to live in a low-income household. Nor are there any measures for first nations populations, who already face considerable obstacles, including severe limitations on their access to transportation, education, communications and health services. The rate of disability among this group is roughly double the Canadian average.

The government therefore needs to clearly state that it intends to work in partnership with the provinces and territories, first nations and people with disabilities in order to come up with an implementation plan for Canada, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Consequently, this motion is a step in the right direction. Of course, I will be supporting it, and I am pleased by my colleague's efforts. However, we want to see more done to change the situation. Although the motion has merit, it is just a first step, and we must go further. The representation of disabled people in the workforce has stagnated over the past 30 years. It is time to change that and truly give them access to the labour market and a decent standard of living. This motion is the first step to getting there.

I would like to remind my colleague and the other members of the House that after 23 years in a wheelchair, I know what I am talking about. Obviously, I know the issues involved in trying to get into the workforce. One major issue is transportation. Para transit service often covers only a small area. That is one major issue. Another major issue is finding housing close to work, which is related to transportation.

That said, I appreciate a number of the elements in my colleague's motion. However, I would like to point out that despite his good intentions, his motion lacks depth. I really hope that we can go a bit further in studying this.